Friday, September 16, 2011

Shrillery Of The Shill

Skills can be transferred, not talent. A look at some of the film stars
who are kids of great actors would be a good indication. In his landmark book “First
break all the rules” Marcus Buckingham (A Gallup researcher) effectively
lays down this principle after researching over 80000 managers across the world:
“People don’t change, don’t try to put in what is not there. Try to get out
what is left inside and that is hard enough”. Some of our TV news channels and
journalists do well to use that principle. Among quite a large group Sagarika Ghose stands out as a media
celeb who dishes out opinions, debates and articles that are filled with
misleading statements that would make any reasonably sensible journalist think
ten times before making. On TV she tries to make up with her shrillery her
acute poverty of insight. Incidentally, you may not find the word in a regular
dictionary but ‘Shrillery’ is a nickname awarded to Hillary Clinton.

Sagarika Ghose does come from a family of media persons but that is
where it ends. This is where I emphasise that skills can be transferred but
talent cannot. Her latest post, on September 14, on her blog (quite
appropriately called Bloody Mary) is called ‘A class apart’. I am simply trying to understand some of the gems
from her article. (Quotes in blue)

In the crowds at Ram Lila Maidan, at the height of Anna fever, there
was anger against corruption, but there was also anger against the rich. An
"elite class" milking the system, sending their children abroad,
"looting" benefits was the particular target of rage.Is that really so? If this wasn’t a poorly
crafted untruth it would have been laughable. Fact is, there were no slogans
against the rich. There were no effigies of Ambanis, Narayanamurthys or any
rich people burnt during the agitation. The most horrible slogans were reserved
for politicians and, may I add, some media celebs. It is also strange that
people who are usually seen as ‘elites’ by the public live in blissful
imagination that they are not in that group. Most media celebs are clearly part
of that elite group, Sagarika included. If she doesn’t know it, that’s blissful
ignorance.

Today `Hindu nationalist rage and massive sangh parivar mobilization is
taking place at all levels of society. Large sections of youth are becoming
radicalized along right wing religious lines. The only way to win hearts and
minds is to urgently start speaking the language of equality, without
doublespeak or condescension. This idiotic assertion makes it amply clear
that Sagarika perhaps really needs to brush up on terminologies. Hindu
nationalist rage and radicalized religious right wing? Fact: It is unfortunately
only the right wing in this country that talks about equality for all. The
right wing doesn’t recommend covering up sins of political failure by populism or by sops or
appeasement. Sagarika cleverly tries to associate the right wing with the Sangh
Parivar and Hindus. This is another clever untruth that the media has
perpetuated. Many right wingers are neither RSS nor BJP members and they do
make up substantial numbers in the media too. And the sly injection of “massive
sangh parivar mobilisation” is almost as if this mobilisation is going to hold
the nation under siege.

Already, millionaire ministers and babalog MPs appear far removed from
daily struggles. Birth-based privilege, so much in evidence in UPA II, is
anathema to the millions who have to compete to survive. Really? Does Sagarika ever hold a mirror to
herself? The mainstream media is supposed to frequently serve a reminder to
these millionaire ministers and baba logs on what they are removed from. Instead,
the shills are busy in the deploring the few states and their administrators
who are doing well. A journalist who has shown scant respect for even the
supreme court cannot be more farther from reality as Sagarika is. After all,
she was the one pleading for at least a moral stricture by the lordships on
Modi. CNN-IBN, NDTV are both part of the cottage industry that has been a
platform for excessive hate-mongering against a politician with no real
evidence or logic.That would leave much less time for real journalistic pursuits.

Rahul's wannabe "I have a dream" speech read out unexpectedly
in Zero Hour even as the Anna crisis boiled over, showed a lack of
understanding of New India. I don’t
believe that… hahaha! A lack of understanding of New India? How did Sagarika
ever come to that conclusion? I repeat for a thousandth time even though I have
probably bored many with this actual statement of Rajdeep Sardesai of CNN-IBN.
This is the statement made when CNN-IBN gave out the sham award of ‘Indian of
the year’ to Rahul Gandhi: “Rahul Gandhi
has been chosen CNN-IBN politician of the year over many of his more
experienced colleagues and rivals because no one toured India the way he has in
the past 60 months. Nobody has enunciated a vision of new India the way he has
and none has understood the immediate need to bridge the city-country divide
the way Rahul Gandhi has. His efforts show that hard work pays even in the
uncertain world of politics.” Take that Sagarika. That is your channel
recognising Rahul’s vision of New India. And now you think that moron is
suddenly disconnected? Question your own organisation why they were in such a
rush to please and award a politician who was around for just 5 years then. It
is these very acts of servantile media that’s reflects the media disconnect
with people.

UPAII's loathing of television media is another mark of its elitism. TV
may be noisy, in-your-face, but it is now inescapable. The camera never blinks
and often is the only recourse to those wanting to make their voices heard. To
scorn television media is to scorn the millions who watch it. To refuse to use
television for a political outreach is also to fail to recognize how fast the
electorate is changing. Another
clever distortion of facts. Far from loathing television the UPA, particularly
Congress, and the Left have extra-ordinary access, influence and presence on
TV. If Anna’s fast had become similar to that of Irom Sharmila I doubt CNN-IBN
would have cared two hoots to cover him. What forced the media to cover the
event is the massive public support that his movement received, particularly
after his arrest drama. To equate the scorn of the UPA for TV just in the case
of this event to scorning the millions who watch it is another lie. A majority
of those millions watching TV news neither trust the media nor believe media is
unbiased. Doesn’t Sagarika receive enough tweets about it? Doesn’t she respond
with anger on many occasions? The typical argument you will get from her is
that there is a world outside internet. Well, that is true but much of
that world is not watching her or her channel. If that had happened the
loathing for her channel will be phenomenal.

Cambridge-educated Nehru spoke to rural crowds about foreign policy and
non-alignment. Can we imagine any high grandee of the UPA respecting an
audience enough to take them through the nuclear deal clause by clause? Has any
UPA minister gone before a public rally in a town and rationally explained
their objections to the Jan Lok Pal bill? Can Sagarika give us a quote or
reference of what foreign policy or about non-alignment Nehru talked about to rural
crowds or when he did that? The NAM was established in 1961, China War happened in 1962 and Nehru
was going around talking to rural crowds about foreign policy and NAM? Where
did you get that from Sagarika? Nehru was definitely a mass leader but a leader
of a budding republic should be measured by his legacy and not merely his
speeches. With all due respect to Nehru, both his foreign policy and the NAM do not reflect a great visionary. Both his
foreign policy and NAM are in shambles. After the 1962 war Nehru was quite a
broken man before he died in 1964 so when did he go around talking about such
stuff with rural crowds? Frankly, some the ‘Cambridge’ educated people in public fields haven’t exactly been great leaders in any domain.

Here’s where I would like to quote Marcus Buckingham again: "What a
leader does for followers is..turn anxiety into confidence. They’ve
always done that throughout time and in every different society and situation.
When leaders lead well, it’s because they’re able to rally people to a better
future and make people spirited when they were previously anxious." That is
where the leaders in the Congress and UPA have failed miserably. Comparisons to
Nehru based on inaccuracies is not the logical answer.

And here’s the final gem:

The entitled sons and daughters of the rich and powerful, whether in
politics, film industry or in business have forgotten the essential ingredient
that built modern India: treating every Indian as an equal. Domination by star
children has robbed Bollywood of its precious common touch. In the media there
is danger of a disconnect between readers and the imitative 'Sex and the City'
type columns that pour out of glossy outlets. Academics, closeted in their
ivory towers, are failing to engage with new realities and generate new ideas.

Sagarika recognises the domination of ‘star children’ in Bollywood but
won’t admit the same may be partly true for the TV news media. Barkha Dutt,
Sagarika Ghose are all star children of media personalities. There isn’t a
danger of disconnect between readers and viewers with the media – There is
already a serious disconnect. Mind you, she says “readers” and not “viewers”.
To my best knowledge there is still a great deal of honesty and value in print
media and online media. It is channels like CNN-IBN that represent the disconnect
with viewers. Talent cannot be transferred as in the case of Bollywood’s star
children. But Sagarika can surely take a break and refresh her journalistic
skills.

Hillary is fondly nicknamed Shrillery. I have fondly nicknamed Sagarika
‘Cacofonix’. And till the TV news media reforms itself we will continue to be
blasted by the shrillery of the shill.

5 comments:

Too good! Does Ms. Shrillery Cacofonix, read this column? It would be nice to see her response. I once wrote to their site, some years ago, calling her "Shouting Sagarika". The comment never got published! Their moderators are the worst censors of even sensible comments, since they hurt their political masters. I watch them to see how explicit is their bent towards their masters. Rajdeep was finding it inconvenient to his conscience covering Anna, made that famous line - 'A zero met Hero' and he too bought a Anna topi. A school girl in Ralegaon to whom he told wearing Anna topi is not enough, quickly responded ' Jail kya, Jaan be Denge Anna ke liye'. Rajdeep was stumped! Most of these anchors are playing with their viewers faith. In this context, the personal apology of Johann Hari, of The Independent is worth reading. Here is the link: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-a-personal-apology-2354679.html

Sagarika is a classic example of marrying right! Frankly never heard of her before she burst on CNN IBN, her husband's channel. Any other channel would have fired her long back for her tendency to cut in her guests or talk simultaneously, drowning her guests' voices with her shrill high pitch voice! And her writings have not much substance either. But why concentrate on her alone...when it comes to shrillity in voice or tone or both, we have so many other worthies!!

Comments are welcome and are not moderated so as to allow free speech. However, comments that are off topic, abusive, defamatory or slanderous may be deleted. Comments disclosing personal information of individuals/entities will be deleted.Comments appearing here do not imply endorsement by author of this blog.